Sign In / Register
Better options than WTE
Craig Jepson’s letter (MF May 19) states that NZ’s trading partners have already moved on from the blunt instrument of landfills. But in European Union (EU) countries, they are also moving on from waste to energy plants. Since 2021, the EU has been cutting off funding for new incinerators, now that the environmental impact of them is better understood, and waste incineration is such a carbon intensive process. Instead, the EU has set targets to halve residual waste by 2030. If they can do it, so can we.
Trish Allen, Matakana
WTE not the answer
There are three not just two solutions to modern waste management: Landfill, incineration (Waste to Energy WTE) and the circular economy. Circular economy (recycling of waste) has been the preference of recent NZ governments and is the only option consistent with 2025 Waste Nothing strategy of Auckland Council. Circular economy is also the only sustainable option of the three.
The sensitive issue of the landfill in the beautiful Dome Valley is an important environment battle for local communities to fight and win. However, the establishment of a large ugly industrial WTE complex, emitting large volumes of greenhouse gases and other toxic fumes, is not compatible with this locally treasured zone.
Circular economy involves treating the most common forms of waste including waste steel, aluminium, plastics, paper and cardboard as a valuable resource and recycle and reuse these materials as many times as possible. For example, most water and drink bottles are made of Type 1 plastic PET, which can be recycled many times (even 10 cycles for medical grade).
In contrast, incineration of PET destroys a valuable resource and converts it into a gas, carbon dioxide, which is the root cause of climate warming and the driver of exceptionally severe storms that have damaged the Rodney/Kaipara in recent years including the costliest climate impact in the history of the Southern Hemisphere (Cyclone Gabrielle, $14.5 billion). Incineration also obviously eliminates the possibility of recycling valuable plastics, paper and cardboard, and so destroys commercial value.
The financial cost and future fiscal risk to ratepayers is a major hidden issue. The cost of a large WTE industrial process is close to $800 million (RNZ, 10/3/2024) plus, it must be assumed, the additional cost of any gas scrubbing facilities, which become much more expensive the closer the scrubbing gets to 100% clean. It is unsurprising, but completely objectionable, that some USA operators have been found to have switched off their scrubbing systems for economic reasons. This releases massive volumes of greenhouse gases, as well as the carcinogenic furan and dioxane vapours from plastic incineration onto their neighbouring communities. The EU is now withdrawing funding for WTE processes after 2021 because of the greenhouse gas emissions (100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide) which contribute to severe climate destruction events.
Can Rodney ratepayers really afford about $30,000 per adult to pay for this flawed potentially toxic technology? Also, once a WTE is commissioned, it must be fed a constant feed of waste even, if necessary, as happened on occasions in the UK and Sweden when the WTE operator had to purchase additional waste from elsewhere to feed the WTE process. This adds even more to the prohibitive cost of operation.
Finally, a North and South article in 2025 reported that an expert Ministry for the Environment panel had concluded that a WTE plant was highly likely not to be viable. Also, Fonterra has opposed a WTE plant in the Waikato because of the risk of toxic carcinogenic emissions to food and dairy products, and to community health. Why should ratepayers accept these financial risks and the risks to the health of themselves and their children?
Professor Ralph Cooney, Devonport
